Mechanical doping became one of the biggest stories of 2016 after a concealed motor was found in Belgian cyclo-cross rider Femke Van den Driessche’s bike at the world championships in Zolder early in the year. Since then, conspicuous efforts have been made to test for technical fraud and British Cycling says these will continue in the coming season.
British Cycling was the first national governing body trained to test for hidden motors and began checking bikes at the national championships in Stockton in June.
Since then, testing has been carried out at a number of road and cyclo-cross events from the Tour of Britain right the way down to regional racing.
Without stating how often tests would be carried out, a British Cycling spokesman told road.cc that the organisation’s objective for the coming year was, “to continue testing for technical fraud at all levels of competitive cycling and across all disciplines to continue to provide an effective deterrent.”
British Cycling are using the same technology that has been developed and is being deployed by the UCI. The governing body has typically scanned using tablets. In addition to this, a thermal imaging camera mounted on a motorbike was employed at the Tour de France, where some bikes were also X-rayed.
The spokesman said: “There are many ways of testing for technical fraud and if there are any additional methods that can assist in this area, British Cycling will again be looking at supporting the UCI in the deployment.”
As for what would happen should a motor be detected: “If there is any detection of technical fraud found, we would follow the policy set out by British Cycling that has been advised by the UCI. After a full investigation that would take place and those results would be shared in the same way as other disciplinary actions.”
13 thoughts on “British Cycling hoping continued testing will discourage mechanical doping”
So, they’re proud to be
So, they’re proud to be busily testing for ‘mechanical doping/fraud’ that was never actually used in one race in Belgium, but actually do very little to stamp out PEDs at any level below Pro Tour. Great.
I love my bike wrote:
Have you checked their sanctiond list recently?
http://www.ukad.org.uk/mobile__anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search/P0
There aren’t many cyclists on it. You’d expect all banned athletes to come from cycling, track and field but they’re mostly rugby players and boxers. The mainstream media don’t report that so much.
The cyclists are not from the Pro Tour, so they must be doing something. If you are worried about someone, you can tip them off anonymously.
Jharrison5 wrote:
So, they’re proud to be busily testing for ‘mechanical doping/fraud’ that was never actually used in one race in Belgium, but actually do very little to stamp out PEDs at any level below Pro Tour. Great.
— Jharrison5 Have you checked their sanctiond list recently? http://www.ukad.org.uk/mobile__anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search/P0 There aren’t many cyclists on it. You’d expect all banned athletes to come from cycling, track and field but they’re mostly rugby players and boxers. The mainstream media don’t report that so much. The cyclists are not from the Pro Tour, so they must be doing something. If you are worried about someone, you can tip them off anonymously.— I love my bike
Indeed, only two or three cyclists on the list. Isn’t hat his point though.
Pathetically short list overall. Totally lost confidence in UKAD after seeing that. Do they only get out of bed once a month?
unconstituted wrote:
Can you point to any dopers that haven’t been sanctioned? The number to call is 08000 323232.
Jharrison5 wrote:
So, they’re proud to be busily testing for ‘mechanical doping/fraud’ that was never actually used in one race in Belgium, but actually do very little to stamp out PEDs at any level below Pro Tour. Great.
— Jharrison5 Have you checked their sanctiond list recently? http://www.ukad.org.uk/mobile__anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/search/P0 There aren’t many cyclists on it. You’d expect all banned athletes to come from cycling, track and field but they’re mostly rugby players and boxers. The mainstream media don’t report that so much. The cyclists are not from the Pro Tour, so they must be doing something. If you are worried about someone, you can tip them off anonymously.— unconstituted
Indeed, only two or three cyclists on the list. Isn’t hat his point though.
Pathetically short list overall. Totally lost confidence in UKAD after seeing that. Do they only get out of bed once a month?
— Jharrison5 Can you point to any dopers that haven’t been sanctioned? The number to call is 08000 323232.— I love my bike
can you point to any dopers that have been sanctioned recently, that UKAD have caught through testing I think is the point being made. motor checks are little more than security theatre, the numbers sound impressive, provide the feeling of improved scrutiny, but actually do little in reality to curb doping. Its not UKADs fault they are ridiculously underfunded to carry out more than cursory checks and indeed seem to rely mostly on tip offs.
Awavey wrote:
Can you point to any dopers that haven’t been sanctioned? The number to call is 08000 323232.— Jharrison5
can you point to any dopers that have been sanctioned recently, that UKAD have caught through testing I think is the point being made. motor checks are little more than security theatre, the numbers sound impressive, provide the feeling of improved scrutiny, but actually do little in reality to curb doping. Its not UKADs fault they are ridiculously underfunded to carry out more than cursory checks and indeed seem to rely mostly on tip offs.
— I love my bike
The UKAD sanction list above details every UK athlete banned for an anti doping rule violation. The linked reports tell you their names, sports, drugs or metabolites found and explain the process by which a decision to sanction was reached. Random testing does take place but is very difficult to maintain at high levels with a budget of 11pence per head of population per annum. It also has a much lower hit rate than intelligence led testing. UKAD might be much more financially efficient if they didn’t have to dedicate so much time to Commons Select Committees and public relations.
The article indicates that it’s British Cycling, rather than UKAD performing the mechanical tests, as it’s their rule they are testing against, not the WADA code.
I seem to remember that Christine Ohurogu, Tim Don, Rio Ferdinand (Rio, under an older system) and others were asked to serve bans for missed tests and ADAMS whereabouts violations. The process for Manchester City seems to be different. Are there different rules for football?
I love my bike wrote:
Dope testing was taking place in UK Open TTs in 2016.
Eventually someone inside
Eventually someone inside UKAD will spill the beans and it’ll turn out they are either a shambles, willfully ignorant or paid off.
Kolo Toure was banned from
Kolo Toure was banned from football for 6 months in 2013 for having been found with the metabolites of the diuretic/masking agent furosemide in his urine. He was, at the time, earning £120,000 per week according to the Telegraph. £6,240,000 per annum
The annual budget for UKAD is £7,000,000. What do you expect them to do?
Pro-sports budgets dwarf the
Pro-sports budgets dwarf the anti-doping agencies everywhere.
The test for mechanical doping is straight forward and can be done without laboratories so can be done by race organisers with the right equipment. Why wouldn’t you do it?
I was surprised and delighted that Man City have been pulled up on a whereabouts failing. It means they are actually testing footballers! Football has the highest sporting budget in the U.K. and yet it is rarely tested, and yet we know that drugs have been in football for years. There’s a great website which highlights a lot of this:
http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/english-football/115815-doping-football-fifty-years-evidence.html
The FA, UEFA and FIFA have no incentive to have their cash cow’s reputation sullied. They are much happier seeing players get cancer, or fall dead on the pitch or on training. It doesn’t hurt their pocket book at all.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
I’m rarely one to defend football’s anti doping record, but the statistics indicate that it is the most tested sport in Britain:
http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/quarterly-reports-on-rule-violations
The FA conducted 364 tests from 1 July to 30 September last year. Interestingly the SFA don’t have any recorded.
I haven’t read up much on the Manchester City thing this week, but is it not the responsibility of the athlete to identify their own whereabouts?
Jharrison5 wrote:
I think there was a pro-footballer, it might have been Danny Murphy, who said they never had a blood test. If all you are doing is pee tests then you’re not going to catch very much.
Pee tests are simple and cheap, they’re also easier to step round. For me they are a band aid on an amputation. It looks like you’re doing something, but you’re not.
The reason they are the most tested is because they are because they have the most professionals.
I got tested for a mechanical
I got tested for a mechanical enhancement at a Welsh League CX event…they obviously hadn’t see me ride unless they expected the motor to make me look utter bunk.